I perceive that the term has an ancient history and consider it far more accurate than the phrase Roman Catholic to describe the Church of the Franks. I picked it up from the Greek Orthodox priest Fr. John Romanides in his excellent book:

On a somewhat related note, I think that many folks underestimate just how tough the Japanese were in World War II. They would literally fight until the death of the last man and then would have their women, children and old folks fight too until their whole population was decimated. Man for man they were superior to any army in the world at the time. Most veterans I've talked to have all said that fighting in the Pacific was ten times worse than in Europe. And if it weren't for the atomic bomb and the United States's manufacturing power, I think that they could have taken on any world power at the time individually; even Germany, due to Japan's naval superiority.

If you get the chance, I recommend you watch the Bollywood movie 'Bose - Forgotten Hero' about the extraordinary Subhas Chandra Bose of whom I think of as India's answer to Malcolm X. I appreciate that the movie depicts Hitler as a bigoted idiot and does a really fine job of placing Bose's relation to Hitler in the right context. The movie depicts General Tojo in a much better light, and Bose knew both. The movie is critical of Ghandi, but maintains an overall respect for him. I afterwards watched Ben Kingsley's 'Ghandi' from the early 1980's and greatly enjoyed both movies. I suggest reading a bit about Subhas Chandra Bose before watching as he is one of the most enigmatic figures of World War II. He was Ghandi's political opponent who desired using arms to force the British out, and there is no one more directly responsible for the death of the British empire. The entire movie is on youtube as a whole and also in 10 minute segments, and large segments of it are in English. Awesome movie and historically accurate.

I perceive that the term has an ancient history and consider it far more accurate than the phrase Roman Catholic to describe the Church of the Franks. I picked it up from the Greek Orthodox priest Fr. John Romanides in his excellent book:

To be fair to Michael Kalina, I think the context of that statement shows that it was "Charles Martel" who claimed that Hitler was a defender of religion, and Kalina seems to have merely written out the idea in order to consider how absurd it is.

Political leaders may well "endorse" one or even several religions without actually believing in any of them, if that is in their best interest.

Indeed. That's what Napoleon did too.

Stalin, an atheist, released some of the more odious shackles from the Orthodox Church when he needed all the help he could get to fight the Nazis

On a somewhat related note, I think that many folks underestimate just how tough the Japanese were in World War II. They would literally fight until the death of the last man and then would have their women, children and old folks fight too until their whole population was decimated. Man for man they were superior to any army in the world at the time. Most veterans I've talked to have all said that fighting in the Pacific was ten times worse than in Europe. And if it weren't for the atomic bomb and the United States's manufacturing power, I think that they could have taken on any world power at the time individually; even Germany, due to Japan's naval superiority.

If you get the chance, I recommend you watch the Bollywood movie 'Bose - Forgotten Hero' about the extraordinary Subhas Chandra Bose of whom I think of as India's answer to Malcolm X. I appreciate that the movie depicts Hitler as a bigoted idiot and does a really fine job of placing Bose's relation to Hitler in the right context. The movie depicts General Tojo in a much better light, and Bose knew both. The movie is critical of Ghandi, but maintains an overall respect for him. I afterwards watched Ben Kingsley's 'Ghandi' from the early 1980's and greatly enjoyed both movies. I suggest reading a bit about Subhas Chandra Bose before watching as he is one of the most enigmatic figures of World War II. He was Ghandi's political opponent who desired using arms to force the British out, and there is no one more directly responsible for the death of the British empire. The entire movie is on youtube as a whole and also in 20 minute segments, and large segments of it are in English. Awesome movie and historically accurate.

I lived in Greek monasteries for over a year, and this was the term which Greek clergy used to designate the Frankist Church (i.e. the Church which has occupied the Vatican since the year 999).

Why since then? I would imagine it was since c.800 when Charlemagne was up and about. He's the one who approved of the filioque and actually argued that the 'Greek' church had excluded it from the Creed

He was Ghandi's political opponent who desired using arms to force the British out, and there is no one more directly responsible for the death of the British empire. The entire movie is on youtube as a whole and also in 20 minute segments, and large segments of it are in English. Awesome movie and historically accurate.

Highly questionable statement. A better candidate would be Michael Collins who, in gaining independence for Ireland* was an inspiration not just for those in the empire, but others such as Ho Chi Minh.

The British had, I believe, already promised independence to India. The Government of India Act (1935) had given India a degree of autonomy.

It can also be argued that Britain's military defeat in Singapore, and it's longest recorded retreat through Burma also showed that Britain could not hold onto all its empire.

Significantly it's Gandhi's successors who took India to independence, not Bose.

*-Ireland became independent before WWII, and arguably as Britian's oldest colony was a more significant loss, politically

I would imagine it was since c.800 when Charlemagne was up and about. He's the one who approved of the filioque and actually argued that the 'Greek' church had excluded it from the Creed

You are correct. Charlemagne did espouse the filioque, and he did argue that he himsle was Roman Emperor and that the East Romans were Greeks.

This is a bit off topic, but the papacy in Rome shifted its political allegiance to the Franks in the mid-700's because the East Roman Emperors were iconoclastic heretics. This is precisely how Constantinople lost political control of Italy.

Fr. Romanides says that the militarily powerful but comparatively barbarian and uneducated Frankish rulers held the filioque, and the papacy exercised an oeconomy towards them from the mid-700's until 999 because the Franks would have otherwise installed their own man in the Vatican as pope. When this in fact happened in the year 999, the underlying reason for the oeconomy vanished. Within ten years, the Frankish popes publicly endorsed the filioque, and their names ceased to read in the Hagia Sophia from the year 1009 onwards.

If you believe that British faithfulness to their promises has anything to do with why the British left India, then you naively ignore their history. Clement Attlee said after the fact that the decision was made to leave India because the indigenous troops could no longer be trusted by 1946, and the Indian National History Museum in Delhi dedicates a significant portion of its permanent exhibit to demonstrate that it was precisely the British publicity of Bose's Indian National Army treason trials in 1946 which backfired so badly is what motivated widespread unrest, strikes, mutinies, etc against the British forcing them to withdraw.

The Government of India Act (1935) had given India a degree of autonomy.

No significant group in India accepted the Federal parts of this Act of 1935. Among other problems, it had no bill of rights for the common man.If Bose was opposed to it, it sounds like that makes it good enough for you, however.

Significantly it's Gandhi's successors who took India to independence, not Bose.

False. According to British prime minister Clement Attleee, it was Indian public reaction to the INA trials which caused the British to leave. Furthermore, Nehru was the defense lawyer for Bose's men at those trials.

Bose worked with the Japanese - who he trusted to be better imperialists than the British. To that ends he trawled PoW camps to recruit men from the British Indian Army into a pro-Japanese army.He is considered by some Indians a hero of Indian nationalism. All the Sikhs I have met seem to love him.He's considered as a traitor by others, because he sided with the enemy.Funny that some non-Indians would be calling him a 'hero'.

Quote from: montalban: the edited edition

Malcolm X worked with the Muslim Brotherhood - who he trusted to be better politically than the FBI. To that ends he trawled american prisons to recruit men from the old American system into a pro-civil rights system.He is considered by some blacks a hero of black nationalism. All the Cubans I have met seem to love him.He's considered as a traitor by others, because he sided with the enemy.Funny that some non-blacks would be calling him a 'hero'.

If you believe that British faithfulness to their promises has anything to do with why the British left India, then you naively ignore their history. Clement Attlee said after the fact that the decision was made to leave India because the indigenous troops could no longer be trusted by 1946, and the Indian National History Museum in Delhi dedicates a significant portion of its permanent exhibit to demonstrate that it was precisely the British publicity of Bose's Indian National Army treason trials in 1946 which backfired so badly is what motivated widespread unrest, strikes, mutinies, etc against the British forcing them to withdraw.

Then you're arguing Bose was the cause of India's independence, but unintentionally - because it's how the British trialled him.

Significantly it's Gandhi's successors who took India to independence, not Bose.

False. According to British prime minister Clement Attleee, it was Indian public reaction to the INA trials which caused the British to leave. Furthermore, Nehru was the defense lawyer for Bose's men at those trials.

It's not false. Nehru was a follower of Gandhi.

One doesn't have to be a supporter to offer a defence, either. One can act as a defence on the principal that all people deserve a defence.

Hitler was a religious person and the III Reich endorsed Christianity.

What are you talking about? Hitler was a staunch atheist. He was recorded once saying that Christianity was a bastardization of Judaism that needed to be eradicated off Earth as well. The only time he ever spoke positively of Christianity was during his public speeches, in which he was using it as a propoganda tool to fool the Christian masses in Germany.

To be fair to Michael Kalina, I think the context of that statement shows that it was "Charles Martel" who claimed that Hitler was a defender of religion, and Kalina seems to have merely written out the idea in order to consider how absurd it is.

What I meant was that Hitler in the beginning was defending the German peoples historic relationship with Christianity, especially Luther and the German theologians no matter what "konfession" they belonged to.

I think in the end, Hitler became very jaded with all religion.

I also posted earlier that probably most of the higher ranking Nazis were probably atheists or were thought religion was irrelevant at best.

I perceive that the term has an ancient history and consider it far more accurate than the phrase Roman Catholic to describe the Church of the Franks. I picked it up from the Greek Orthodox priest Fr. John Romanides in his excellent book:

I perceive that the term has an ancient history and consider it far more accurate than the phrase Roman Catholic to describe the Church of the Franks. I picked it up from the Greek Orthodox priest Fr. John Romanides in his excellent book:

Ah yes, I know about Fr. Romanides and his curious historical theories. The term Frankist Church isn't very accurate though. Most modern-day "Franks" aren't in communion with the Pope.

The term "Frank(ish)" exists in old Romanian church literature with that meaning as well - there's a text saying that there were two monasteries on Mount Tabor: an Orthodox (pravoslav) one built by Romanian monks and one of the "Franks" (frânci). But it's an anachronism indeed.

No.Nehru was a snake who used Ghandi's prestige to obtain power which he and his family have used to exploit India to this day.

"Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence is a book written by Jaswant Singh, a former Finance Minister of India and an External Affairs Minister, on Pakistan's founder Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the politics associated with the partition of British India. It is currently the latest book written by an Indian politician on the life of Jinnah. The book was released on 17 August 2009 and soon became the subject of controversy, subsequently leading to Singh's expulsion from the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). It contains controversial opinions of Singh, claiming that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's centralized policy was responsible for partition, and that Jinnah was portrayed as a demon by India for the partition. The book launch ceremony was held at Teen Murti Bhavan in the presence of only a couple of BJP members."

"Singh was expelled by the BJP following a party meeting chaired by L.K. Advani on 19 August 2009 stating that they will not "compromise on matters of ideology or disciple". The government of the Indian state Gujarat banned the book for allegedly having defamatory references towards India's first home minister Vallabhbhai Patel. However, Gujarat lifted the ban on 4 September 2009 after a court struck it down. The Indian newspaper The Hindu claimed "Mark Tully, Meghnad Desai, Ram Jethmalani, Namwar Singh and Hameed Haroon said a new appraisal of Jinnah’s role was needed and Mr. Singh had done a commendable job."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinnah:_India-Partition-Independence

"In interviews with media he quoted BJP as narrow-minded and to have limited thought. His book was later banned in Gujarat. Singh said of the ban "The day we start banning books, we are banning thinking". In 2010, he was readmitted to BJP."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaswant_Singh#Controversy

It happens that my grand-father and names-sake was in the 2nd AIF (in WWII). Anyone who fought against him and Australia I would not take too kindly too.

"The Australian Army. We'll fight anyone, anywhere, anytime. Never missed a war yet, and we're sure not going to miss the next one - even if we have to start it ourselves." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqDqYoxa3AU

a) Indians ran for elections under the act you claim next to none didb) a 'bill of rights' isn't the pinnacle of constitutionsc) one can defend the rights of others to hold an opposing theory; thus I support your right to spout Nazi-apology though I don't agree with you

It happens that my grand-father and names-sake was in the 2nd AIF (in WWII). Anyone who fought against him and Australia I would not take too kindly too.

"The Australian Army. We'll fight anyone, anywhere, anytime. Never missed a war yet, and we're sure not going to miss the next one - even if we have to start it ourselves." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqDqYoxa3AU

I perceive that the term has an ancient history and consider it far more accurate than the phrase Roman Catholic to describe the Church of the Franks. I picked it up from the Greek Orthodox priest Fr. John Romanides in his excellent book:

Ah yes, I know about Fr. Romanides and his curious historical theories. The term Frankist Church isn't very accurate though. Most modern-day "Franks" aren't in communion with the Pope.

The term "Frank(ish)" exists in old Romanian church literature with that meaning as well - there's a text saying that there were two monasteries on Mount Tabor: an Orthodox (pravoslav) one built by Romanian monks and one of the "Franks" (frânci). But it's an anachronism indeed.

It happens that my grand-father and names-sake was in the 2nd AIF (in WWII). Anyone who fought against him and Australia I would not take too kindly too.

"The Australian Army. We'll fight anyone, anywhere, anytime. Never missed a war yet, and we're sure not going to miss the next one - even if we have to start it ourselves." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqDqYoxa3AU

"The Ottoman Army won a historic victory over the Allied forces at Gallipoli in 1915. This was one of the most decisive and clear-cut campaigns of the Great War. Yet the performance of the Ottomans, the victors, has often received less attention than that of the Allied army they defeated. Edward Erickson, in this perceptive new study, concentrates on the Ottoman side of the campaign. He looks in detail at the Ottoman Army - at its structure, tactics and deployment - and at the conduct of the commanders who served it so well. His pioneering work complements the extensive literature on other aspects of the Gallipoli battle, in particular those accounts that have focused on the experience of the British, Australians and New Zealanders. This highly original reassessment of the campaign will be essential reading for students of the Great War, especially the conflict in the Middle East."

The British directed this failed campaign against Constantinople from Limnos island which I have seen from Mount Athos.

The British directed this failed campaign against Constantinople from Limnos island which I have seen from Mount Athos.

It's very easy to know why the Turks won. On their home soil, not far from the capital, holding the high ground against misplaced troops lead by pedestrian British leadership! Hamilton was rubbish.

Australian leadership was shown in the evacuation where we were able to withdraw right under the noses of the Turks without any casualties. The Turks could observe all points of the ANZAC lines but were deceived over several nights by good planning and execution.

Present on the Turkish side was Mustafa Kemal (later the founder of Modern Turkey as Kemal Attaturk).

He said this:· Heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives! You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well. o A tribute to those ANZACs who died in Gallipoli (1934). The Turks re-named the area in their honour and it is now officially called ANZAC Cove.

This thread has inspired me to buy a book on debunking Holocaust denials

Michael Phayer has two books related to this subject. After going over the contents of his first book 'The Catholic Church and the Holocaust', I assessed it as jewish anti-Christian propaganda - one dimensional, narrow minded and useless. It has a heavy handed mean spirited bias about it.

I have indeed, and I discovered that most British propaganda against the Turks was created and issued through two distinct orifices:1) the protestant missionary establishment in the middle east 2) the British foreign office

I have indeed, and I discovered that most British propaganda against the Turks was created and issued through two distinct orifices:1) the protestant missionary establishment in the middle east 2) the British foreign office

However the British were not the only PoWs of the Turks.

There were Australian, New Zealander and, Russian PoWs, to name a few.

Blowback is my favorite book about Operations Paperclip and Bloodstone (i.e. transfer of Nazis to positions of power and influence in post-war America).

Nazi Hydra is a more encyclopaedic book that especially concerns Ford, Rockefeller, DuPont, and Bush.This whole book is guided by some excellent books from the 1940's by muckraker reporter George Seldes who is in my opinion the best american news reporter of the twentieth century. The thesis of Yeadon's book is that World War II was won against Nazis on the battlefield and then defeated by Nazis on the homefront.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Seldes

He became a quite prominent and vocal critic of many aspects of the Holocaust official story. But then, all of a sudden, he disappeared. The Jewish Defense League posted a message offering a reward to anyone who could provide information on David Cole's location, referring to him as a "monstrous traitor" to the Jewish people, saying that "we must get rid of this monster" and other quite threatening language. Cole feared for his life and for the safety of his family who he was caring for, and soon issued a very general statement saying that he "recanted" all of his revisionist statements regarding the Holocaust, though without any detailed explanation of why he changed his mind or why his former views were mistaken.

Interestingly, before his disappearance and departure from the revisionist movement, he did record some videos where he makes some interesting statements in hindsight. For instance, his statement that it is "suicidal" for a Jew to oppose the official holocaust story: